Exploiting the Culture of Pecuniary Emulation: Veblen Meets Plunkitt

-- By AndrewHerink - 10 Feb 2008

What can Veblen’s theory of economic institutions reveal about the relative success of political systems? Tammany Hall, a system of machine politics, was a force in New York City from the mid-1800s until the New Deal. George Washington Plunkitt, whose musings are documented in William Riordon’s Plunkitt of Tammany Hall (1905), was a long-time State Senator and Tammany’s most outspoken politician. Plunkitt’s ruminations suggest that Tammany’s brand of machine politics was successful because it reinforced and exploited the culture of pecuniary emulation.

Reinforcing the Culture of Pecuniary Emulation

In order to promote the pecuniary emulation culture they exploited, Tammany politicians openly engaged in this culture. Whereas Republican politicians made “indignant denials” about their plunders, Plunkitt candidly embraced the amounts of wealth his “honest graft” brought him. William Riordon, Plunkitt of Tammany Hall, September 2001, http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext01/plnth10.txt. Plunkitt proclaims: “Everybody knows what figure I cut in the greatest organization on earth, and if you hear people say that I’ve laid away a million or so since I was a butcher’s boy in Washington Market, don’t come to me for an indignant denial I’m pretty comfortable, thank you.” Riordon, supra, at Ch. 2. Not only, then, does Plunkitt claim to have obscene amounts of money; he also asserts that he is so conspicuous in his consumption that “everybody knows” exactly how much he makes.

Plunkitt also makes it clear that conspicuous consumption equates with success. Prior to explaining his habits of indulgence, he states, “I don’t think you can easily find a better example than I am of success in politics.” Riordon, supra, at Ch. 2. This open embracement of conspicuous consumption’s imperativeness helped to reinforce in Tammany voters’ minds the superiority of the pecuniary emulation culture.

Exploiting the Culture of Pecuniary Emulation to Gain Votes

In addition to reinforcing this culture, Tammany politicians exploited it in several ways. First they constructed a narrative of the political process that mirrored the process of pecuniary emulation. This parallel narrative gave Tammany’s rather impoverished immigrant base a chance to excel in at least some form of the pecuniary emulation sweepstakes. Plunkitt states: “When the people elected Tammany, they knew just what they were doin’. We didn’t put up any false pretenses. […] We stood as we have always stood, for reward – in the men that won the victory. They call that the spoils system.” Riordon, supra, at Ch. 3. This process of transforming victory into spoils paralleled the process of pecuniary emulation. Tammany’s political base consistently witnessed wealthier individuals turn economic supremacy (superior amounts of money) into individual conspicuous consumption and, in turn, gain noticeable “victory” over their economic inferiors. Tammany claimed that it could help its members perform a similar trick: it could turn political supremacy (superior amounts of votes) into conspicuous consumption for its voting bloc. Of course, the conspicuous consumption that Tammany’s voters engaged in (jobs and pay raises) was less indulgent than that of their wealthier counterparts. Nonetheless, even this limited consumption signified “victory” over much of their downtrodden lower-class peers.

• Andrew, this an unnecessary pool of error. Obviously, immigrant workingmen aren't being made members of the leisure class by getting a job in the gas house. Plunkitt is saying that by successful exploit he has become a chieftain (do you know enough about Tammany Hall to know of its "Indian" regalia and rituals?)--his followers get jobs, and make money, while his style of existence is glorified. You can tell the story you want to tell, showing how Veblen's thinking illuminates the politics of his time, without doing fundamental violence to his ideas, as you are doing here.

In addition, Tammany politicians made it appear as though their opponents described a narrative of the political process (one based on rights and justice) that was foreign to the culture of pecuniary emulation. Early on, Plunkitt makes it clear that a Tammany man has no tolerance for “politics from books” and other “sorts of college rot.” Riordon, supra, at Ch. 2. In contrast, Tammany’s Republican opponents “cram” the “letterboxes” of constituents with fliers representing their high-minded ideals. Riordon, supra, at Ch. 6. According to Plunkitt, these principled ideals fail to communicate to voters, who desire conspicuous results and spoils. Thus Plunkitt notes his politics is focused on obtaining noticeable outcomes, not intangible rights, for constituents: he “help[s] them in the different ways they need help.” Riordon, supra, at Ch. 6.

• But that hasn't anything to do with the preceding point and is not "in addition."

Exploiting the Pecuniary Emulation Culture to Create Leaders

Tammany also exploited the culture of pecuniary emulation by constructing an internal promotion procedure that mirrored the process of conspicuous consumption. That is, whereas success in the pecuniary emulation culture depended on how many riches one could gain and how well he could show them off, success in Tammany Hall depended on the amount of votes a politician could acquire and how well he could display them. Since this type of promotion process was intuitive to Tammany’s politicians, who had been raised in a culture of pecuniary emulation, they thrived under it, which in turn helped Tammany as a whole gain votes and strength.

• But this too is completely wrong. Plunkitt, with his particular constituency, adopts his particular conspicuous style. But, as he points out himself, that's no part of the style of the most eminent Tammany politician of his time, his own boss, Richard Croker. That one has votes behind one is the crucial aspect of political leadership to these men, and flamboyant material style is valuable only insofar as it conduces to marshaling votes. To talk of "displaying votes" as a pecuniary competition among bosses is not insightful, just confusing.

Along these lines, Plunkitt notes that he received no status in Tammany until he gained supporting voters. Then, when he had three voters backing him, “everybody [in Tammany Hall] shook hands with me, and the leader one day honored me by lightin’ a match for my cigar.” Riordon, supra, at Ch. 2. Later, he gained upwards of sixty votes and gave his group of backers an official name, the “George Washington Plunkitt Association,” to make his pledged votes more conspicuous. Riordon, supra, at Ch. 2. At that point, he was “courted and petted” by Tammany’s leaders, and he received a seat in the Assembly as soon as he asked for one. Riordon, supra, at Ch. 2. Clearly, then, Tammany was successful, in part, because its members understood and thrived under its promotion process.

• A tautology dressed as an insight.

Conclusions

The above analysis suggests that political organizations will thrive if they can exploit the culture of pecuniary emulation. Obviously, the machine politics model is not the only way to perform such exploitation. Indeed, one could argue that our current political system does an even better job of utilizing the pecuniary emulation culture to its advantage.

-- AndrewHerink - 04 Apr 2008

• A single example couldn't suggest anything about the dynamics of political organizations, and you should know better than to propose a one-point line, let alone a one-point curve. The basic problem was in using one concept in a highly schematic way to address a complex social phenomenon instead of using several concepts in flexible, overlapping ways to address a simple social phenomenon in perspective.